will try :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artin Mehraban (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
While the "Afshars" as a people belong to the Oghuz Turkic tribes, (as far as I am informed), Nadir Shah was not of Turkic origin. He was a native Persian of Khorasan. He and his mother were captured as prisoners and slaves by the invading Uzbek Khans when Nadir was stiull a child. Some time later, he managed to escape while his mother was killed by the Uzbeks. As a young boy, he found refuge in an Afshar settlement in Khorasan. He was adopted by the chief of the tribe and thus called himself "Nadir-e Afshar". Tajik 09:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The Afshars are associated with the Oguz tribes and are often mistakenly referred to as Turkic or Turkomen because they were a Qizilbash tribe. However, many Qizilbash tribes, such as the Afshars were ethnically Iranian or Kurdish, and not Turkic.--WingedEarth (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Afshar tribe is of Turkic origin. Nader Shah considered himself as Iranian because he was from there. This does not disappears his Turkic origins. Persian culture is something I really respect but just get over it; there were many Turkic originated dynasties in the history of Iran, which considered themselves as Iranians but not Persians. They spoke Turkic and aware of their Turkic origins. Being unsuccessful in life makes a person ultra-nationalist but it does not vanishes the reality. AttilaAkay (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
AttilaAkay (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I am not here for personal issues, because this is an objective, academic platform. Rather I saw this act in those trying to refuse a scientific fact, those who suggest things like " The Afshars are associated with the Oguz tribes and are often mistakenly referred to as Turkic or Turkomen ". Like, even in this page there are evidences proves that they have clearly Turkic origins, why are you so quiet about that? Nader Shah's daily language was also Turkish, which shows they also valued Turkish language too. I have solid sources. Also why it is needless to add modern Turkish script to a 18th century Iranian dynasty with Turkic origins, while it is okay to add Persian script to a 10th century Turkic dynasty? Just because they promoted the Iranian culture in some aspects? I am not here to debate whether you or I am right, I am just trying to confront a double standard.
Incase you decide to revert again, I'm making this comment and posting the evidence. The Afsharids were an Iranian dynasty and they thought of themselves so, see this coin: [1]Khosrow II 19:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)